crotchitymedic1986 Posted June 8, 2010 Posted June 8, 2010 I am sorry, the vast majority of deadly attacks have been at the hands of muslims. And funny thing is, you never see any "good muslims" denouncing their evil counterparts.
Just Plain Ruff Posted June 8, 2010 Posted June 8, 2010 I am sorry, the vast majority of deadly attacks have been at the hands of muslims. And funny thing is, you never see any "good muslims" denouncing their evil counterparts. that I can agree with you on Crotch. I think the muslims are just better at it than their counterparts. They've had more practice and they have access to better bombs. But there are terrorist orgs in every country, muslim and non muslim. they all need to be rooted out and destroyed and condemned by the public and those who they say they represent. It's like an infection, you get rid of the offending organism and you can cure the infection. A simple analysis but one that is partially true. Every time I get on a plane, I wonder, is this the day that that lone idiot terrorist has figured out a way to detonate a sock bomb or a mp3 player bomb. It's scary but I don't give it any more thought than "not this time" I can honestly say that planes will not be the next weapon of mass destruction, I think it will be the water supply or a local nuclear powerplant. We really aren't too far apart on our thoughts Crotch which you know, we never really have been.
crotchitymedic1986 Posted June 8, 2010 Posted June 8, 2010 that I can agree with you on Crotch. I think the muslims are just better at it than their counterparts. They've had more practice and they have access to better bombs. But there are terrorist orgs in every country, muslim and non muslim. they all need to be rooted out and destroyed and condemned by the public and those who they say they represent. It's like an infection, you get rid of the offending organism and you can cure the infection. A simple analysis but one that is partially true. Every time I get on a plane, I wonder, is this the day that that lone idiot terrorist has figured out a way to detonate a sock bomb or a mp3 player bomb. It's scary but I don't give it any more thought than "not this time" I can honestly say that planes will not be the next weapon of mass destruction, I think it will be the water supply or a local nuclear powerplant. We really aren't too far apart on our thoughts Crotch which you know, we never really have been. We are very close in thought. There has always been terrorists, and there will always be terrorists, it is just Muslims are the flavor of the decade(s) for now. There are all types of religous fanatics (in ALL religions), and all kinds of generalized nuts, but right now the Muslims are doing more damage.
aussiephil Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 We are very close in thought. There has always been terrorists, and there will always be terrorists, it is just Muslims are the flavor of the decade(s) for now. There are all types of religous fanatics (in ALL religions), and all kinds of generalized nuts, but right now the Muslims are doing more damage. I have always found it interesting that we have to label people, by religion or the like. Many things have been done in the name of religion over the centuries. Christian religions are as guilty as muslims, just we now call them the Crusades. Can we call the likes of David Koresh a terrorist, dressed in religious clothing? Many of the teachings, regardless of the religion are targetet at those who are suseptable to suggestion. This is cultivated & they are groomed. Their beliefs are distorted. In many cases this is because many have poor education, with no real prospect for improvment in the future. Currently they are muslims, they could quite easily be radical Baptists, Extreemist Pentecostals, or fundamentalist Catholics. The debate here is over the construction of a building for religious purposes, not a hate tread for muslims. Regardless of who is responsible for recent terror attacks, the Crusades lasted nearly 200 years, with the sole purpose of recapturing Jerusalim & the holy land from the muslims. Does tht make ALL 'christians', regardless of denomination, as bad as ALL muslims are being made out to be? 1
Lone Star Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Not all muslims are terrorists ! BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS ! How many of the known terrorist groups listed below are Muslim? Animal Liberation Front Army of God Black Liberation Army Environmental Life Force/Earth Liberation Front Jewish Defense League Ku Klux Klan Symbionese Liberation Army Weathermen I could list a boatload more groups, but only SOME of them are Islamic in nature.... Fundamentalist christians believe, for example, that God created the world in 7 literal days. Are they right or wrong? And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31, King James Bible) The Bible says that when Noah built the Ark it rained for 40 days & 40 nights, but Noah lived to be hundreds of years old, so how long did it rain for? (At the time of Christ it is believed the average lifespan was 30-40 for a male). Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950, the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses. 2
aussiephil Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31, King James Bible) Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950, the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses. Lone, my quotes were to highlight that there are fundamental differences in beliefs. This is not the place for a theological debate. Suffice to say there are many different beliefs in the christian religions, why wouldnt Islam be the same?
HERBIE1 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I have always found it interesting that we have to label people, by religion or the like. Many things have been done in the name of religion over the centuries. Christian religions are as guilty as muslims, just we now call them the Crusades. Can we call the likes of David Koresh a terrorist, dressed in religious clothing? Many of the teachings, regardless of the religion are targetet at those who are suseptable to suggestion. This is cultivated & they are groomed. Their beliefs are distorted. In many cases this is because many have poor education, with no real prospect for improvment in the future. Currently they are muslims, they could quite easily be radical Baptists, Extreemist Pentecostals, or fundamentalist Catholics. The debate here is over the construction of a building for religious purposes, not a hate tread for muslims. Regardless of who is responsible for recent terror attacks, the Crusades lasted nearly 200 years, with the sole purpose of recapturing Jerusalim & the holy land from the muslims. Does tht make ALL 'christians', regardless of denomination, as bad as ALL muslims are being made out to be? I do not understand the comparisons between things like the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and what the fanatical Muslims are doing now. Society was much more primitive and uneducated back then. The radical Muslims are generally well educated, so they do not have that excuse. I really don't think it's fair to make such comparisons. As for people like David Koresh- he was a sociopath. a narcissist, and had a God complex. He thought he was a prophet. I agree that religion is the cause of many of our problems- wars have been fought over it, many have died, insane policies have been justified by it, and since this is about "faith" and not fact, no amount of logic can dissuade the hard core folks from their beliefs, and the process continues until the next big thing.
JPINFV Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I do not understand the comparisons between things like the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and what the fanatical Muslims are doing now. Society was much more primitive and uneducated back then. The radical Muslims are generally well educated, so they do not have that excuse. I really don't think it's fair to make such comparisons. As for people like David Koresh- he was a sociopath. a narcissist, and had a God complex. He thought he was a prophet. ...and you know. I bet in 300 some odd years (Salem Witch Trials) or 900 years from now (1st Crusade), the people living is going to look back at us uneducated, primitive humans of the 2000s...
JPINFV Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Many of the white supremacist groups use their interpretation of religion as a justification for their views and actions. THAT is the point here. Allowing them to march was certainly an affront to many Holocaust survivors who live in that town. But, they also knew a march or rally is a temporary, one day thing. As disgusting and offensive as it may be, these people knew that these groups were not setting up shop in their suburb. They allowed them to assemble because of the freedoms we have in this country. Setting up a permanent reminder of an atrocity, committed by a specific group, in the shadow of where a heinous crime was committed is something completely different. I almost hate to say it considering that it's the Nazis at Skokie, but so what? Sure, it's easy to say ban the Nazis because they did X and seeing them reminds you of X. Ban the Muslims because of Al Qaeda. But how far should we go and who's opinion of "offensiveness" is important enough to give them veto power? The Catholic church gets a lot of criticism over hiding pedofile priests, so should we no longer allow Catholic Churches to be built within sight of schools? It's the same damn thing, the only thing that's disconcerting is that it's a lot harder to distance ourselves from Christian groups than Muslim groups. Huh? You have a problem with a more modern issue, like the priest sex abuse issue? Wrong. I never said that, never implied it and I won't respond to a strawman. I didn't realize that to take an issue and transpose it on similar groups at home is considered a straw man now. You're saying that Islam, as a whole (hence the no mosque argument) is at fault for Islamic terrorists. As such, then why isn't it fair to blame all of Christianity when ever someone does something evil in the name of Christianity? You say that this is about Jihadists, yet seek to punish people that are, unless you have proof to the other wise, Jihadists. It's like saying no churches within sight of cemetaries because of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, the vast majority of Christians don't agree with his beliefs, but almost 100% of the protests at US military funerals are because of him. Therefore, it's insensitive and insulting to build a church near a cemetery. Really? So you would have no problem if a neo-Nazi hate group decided to build their own shrine next to a place like Auschwitz? You see nothing wrong with that? Just because it may be legal to do something, does not mean it's a good idea. Actions have consequences, and if we allow this group to build their mosque in that location, who do you think will be responsible for mitigating anything that results from that structure- the Muslims who worship at the mosque? Do I see something wrong with it? Yes. Do I think it's the governments job to step in? No. Sorry, but just because I disagree with a group doesn't mean I get to take away their rights. If someone wants to go stand on a street corner handing out racist fliers, then so be it. That's his right. I don't have to agree with the fliers and I retain the right to denounce the fliers and protest against him, but I do not support the government stepping in and silencing any group short of them advocating open rebellion or an actual material threats that would meet the requirments of, say, attempted murder or conspiracy (i.e. "I want ____ to die" isn't enough). If the Neo-Nazis want to go build a shrine outside of Auschwicz, so be it. The opposite (government censorship) is much worse. Silenced lunatics become martyrs and more rational (although not always completely rational) people see conspiracy theories. Additionally, where does it end? As I've maintained, it's easy to sit here and kick down small groups, but these restrictions have a tendency to grow out of hand and start impacting the mainstream. That's why it's "Congress shall make no law regarding..." (extended to the states through the 14th amendment, and incorporated through the doctrine of selective incorporation under Cantwell v Connecticut) and not Congress shall make no laws regarding... unless we don't like them." What actions have consequences? A fringe group of a religion committing acts of terrorism is now justification for group punishment or are you going to claim that these Muslims are members or supporters of Al Qaeda? I'm quite sure there were citizens, noncitizens, tourists, those here on visas, Buddhists, Muslims, Lutherans, atheists, and every other religion represented among the victims of 9/11. The hijackers did not fly planes into churches or other houses of worship. This was an attack on our way of life, on America as a whole. The people who died were merely collateral damage to them and their religions were of no consequence. Those towers were attacked because they are a well known symbol of this country, our political and ideological beliefs, and our way of life. Since you seek to deny them of their rights because of their religion, I completely disagree that it is immaterial in how it is looked at. I hate to bring out a cliche, but if our political and ideological beliefs includes belief in the freedom to practice a religion of ones own choice, banning a mosque for no better reason than its a mosque would mean abandoning our beliefs. The terrorists have won. A mosque is a symbol of Islam, just as a synagogue or temple is a symbol of Judaism, and a Catholic church is a symbol of Christianity. Do these structures all represent the views of every extreme sect of those religious groups? Of course not, and nobody would argue that point, but they DO represent a broader religious viewpoint. Let's look back over the last 20-30 years and see who has been responsible for the majority of terror attacks. The USS Cole, US embassies, army bases, both WTC attacks, the Pentagon, Flight 93, the recent underwear bomber, the shoe bomber- what do all of these acts have in common? What symbol or artifact would you use to express the common factor in all those incidents? Except this entire issue is that people are arguing that that is exactly what they represent. 9/11 terrorists were Muslim and claimed to do it in the name of Islam. Mosques are a sign of Islam. Therefore no Mosque. If the mosque doesn't represent the views of Al Qaeda any more than every church represents Fred Phelps, then it shouldn't be a problem. Either all Muslims are terrorists by no other reason than Islam, or they aren't. You can't say in one line that a religious building doesn't represent the extreme segments of a religion, and then in the next sentence act as if they do. The only other interpretation is that terrorism is a mainstay of Islam. The stated intent of the group that wants to build that mosque was to promote peace and understanding for their religion. I do not doubt that for one minute. It's a noble goal, and I'm all for it. I object to WHERE they intend to make that statement. If something like this is allowed, there will be consequences. Guaranteed. Why would we knowingly subject ourselves to another potential disaster if we can possibly avoid it? The potential downside of allowing this to go forward far outweighs the possible good that may come from it. Build the mosque, promote your desire for peace, understanding, and tolerance, but do NOT do it in the shadow of one of our country's worst disasters which was perpetrated by a group who uses that religion- as warped as their view of their religion may be- as justification for their actions. If these Muslim leaders cannot see the harm or offense that many will take from this, then I question their stated intentions.Tolerance and understanding is a 2-way street. What legal consequences do you see happening? If you're talking about something like vandalism, then I expect the police to do their job and punish the vandals. How close is too close? I think any facilties within sight of Ground Zero should be non-denominational. That's kinda of hard to qualify. These were 110 floor buildings, so do we go by sight of where they used to stand, or sight of the property line? If just the property line, are we talking from the entrance or the top of the building? While I get that "within sight" is supposed to be a general "really close by," but there has to be a hard number because what is too close for one person won't be too close for someone else. On a completely serious note, thank you for being consistent with being against all religious buildings instead of just one. Well, if the Druids suddenly decide they will become fanatical and suicidal and take down a couple skyscrapers, then I'll be first in line to tell them they cannot erect a shrine(a tree, a rock, or whatever they worship at). Until then, I will object to an Arab group wanting to build a shrine at Ground Zero. So all Arab groups represent or supports terrorism? I am sorry, the vast majority of deadly attacks have been at the hands of muslims. And funny thing is, you never see any "good muslims" denouncing their evil counterparts. Do you stand up and denounce every crime that someone commits that who are connected to you? I don't mean on line or in idle conversation. I mean running advertisements, talking to the media, etc. After all, I don't stand in front of my class and denounce EMS providers who provide shitty care or make shitty decisions like the current MA CME scandal. Does that mean I support what happened in the scandal since I'm not making sure strangers know my view?
Quakefire Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I know you cant really ban a religion (well you can but bad things tend to happen) but Islam isn't the problem. Don't get me started on intelligent design and creationism, there was a guy in the US who ran one of those "earth is 2000 years old" "Museums" (and I use that term loosely)who claimed that he was exempt from taxes because God is his employer and the Church doesnt have to pay taxes. Geez you wander around talking to God and you get locked up cause your crazy, go to a staff meeting with him/her and all you get is the IRS. For the record I believe everything was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster May he touch you with his noodley appendage and bring you into his sauce
Recommended Posts